Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26212700›Full record

SynthesisNeurosurgical review2016

A systematic review of the use of expandable cages in the cervical spine.

Benjamin D Elder, Sheng-Fu Lo, Thomas A Kosztowski, C Rory Goodwin, Ioan A Lina, John E Locke, Timothy F Witham

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Neurosurgical review, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Clinical and radiological outcomes of one-level cervical corpectomy with an expandable cage for three-column uncomplicated subaxial type «B» injures: a multicenter retrospective study.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2023
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Benjamin D ElderDepartment of Neurosurgery, The Johns Hopkins Hospital, 1800 Orleans Street, Baltimore, MD, USA, 21287. belder4@jhmi.edu.
Sheng-Fu LoDepartment of Neurosurgery, The Johns Hopkins Hospital, 1800 Orleans Street, Baltimore, MD, USA, 21287.
Thomas A KosztowskiDepartment of Neurosurgery, The Johns Hopkins Hospital, 1800 Orleans Street, Baltimore, MD, USA, 21287.
C Rory GoodwinDepartment of Neurosurgery, The Johns Hopkins Hospital, 1800 Orleans Street, Baltimore, MD, USA, 21287.
Ioan A LinaDepartment of Neurosurgery, The Johns Hopkins Hospital, 1800 Orleans Street, Baltimore, MD, USA, 21287.
John E LockeDepartment of Neurosurgery, The Johns Hopkins Hospital, 1800 Orleans Street, Baltimore, MD, USA, 21287.
Timothy F WithamDepartment of Neurosurgery, The Johns Hopkins Hospital, 1800 Orleans Street, Baltimore, MD, USA, 21287.
Johns Hopkins Hospital · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Expandable vertebral body replacement cages (VBRs) have been widely used for reconstruction of the thoracolumbar spine following corpectomy. However, their use in the cervical spine is less common, and currently, no expandable cages on the market are cleared or approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for use in the cervical spine. The objective of this study was to perform a systematic review on the use of expandable cages in the treatment of cervical spine pathology with a focus on fusion rates, deformity correction, complications, and indications. A comprehensive Medline search was performed, and 24 applicable articles were identified and included in this review. The advantages of expandable cages include greater ease of implantation with less risk of damage to the end plate, less intraoperative manipulation of the device, and potentially greater control over lordosis. They may be particularly advantageous in cases with poor bone quality, such as patients with osteoporosis or metastatic tumors that have been radiated. However, there is a potential risk of overdistraction, which is increased in the cervical spine, their minimum height limits their use in cases with collapsed vertebra, and the amount of hardware in the expansion mechanism may limit the surface area available for fusion. The use of expandable VBRs are a valuable tool in the armamentarium for reconstruction of the anterior column of the cervical spine with an acceptable safety profile. Although expandable cervical cages are clearly beneficial in certain clinical situations, widespread use following all corpectomies is not justified due to their significantly greater cost compared to structural bone grafts or non-expandable VBRs, which can be utilized to achieve similar clinical outcomes.

Indexed as

Diffusion Chambers, CultureInternal FixatorsCervical VertebraeHumansNeurosurgical ProceduresSpinal FusionBiomechanicsCervical corpectomyExpandable cageSupplemental fixationVertebral body replacement

Identifiers

PMID26212700
OpenAlexW1425933199

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.